Blaster fire speed

[McC]

Sure. Assuming a blaster and lightsaber deliver the same instantaneous power on target over some amount time, the sustained average output of the lightsaber is more intense than the output of a broken series of blaster bolts.

Ohhhh, okay. I dunno why I didn't pick up on that. Thanks for clearing it up!

[McC]

Okay, maybe this can help in our analysis here. These are five frames from the internally-viewed superlaser tributary shaft.

001 - 00:00: Empty Shaft

In this frame, we see the good old tributary shaft. It's big, it's long, it's cylindrical. There are two large cylindrical conduits on the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the shaft which may do nothing more than provide illumination for the crewmen to the left, or may have a great deal to do with the firing mechanism (I'm more inclined to believe the latter). There are also mirrored trapezoids forming rings around this primary shaft at seemingly regular intervals.

002 - 00:04: Beam Forms

This frame reveals some very interesting early-stage characteristics of the forming beam. We can see some form of perpetuating glowing rings around a very thin (relatively) central core that is vibrant orange and decidedly not green as the final beam would suggest. It is, in fact, the surrounding 'rings' that are green. Perhaps this is the 'containment field' that has been bandied about, which provides a laser blast its coloration. The green of Imperial lasers might represent a more refined weapon whereas the red of Rebel lasers might suggest a less refined (or contained) weapon. This notion is based solely on the idea that the thin core of the superlaser lends the reddish hue to Rebel laser weaponry.

003 - 00:13: Intensified Green Rings

The green rings appear to be growing in intensity at this point, while the central orange has grown in intensity only very slightly. The inconsistent nature of this central orange column could suggest a particle stream.

004 - 00:18: Energy Pulse

We can now see an enormous yellow surge of energy coming down the shaft. There is a powerful green glow being cast on the technicians on the left. This would appear to be caused by some intermingling of the green ring column (the rings can be seen to form a 'solid' hazy green column) with the massive yellow energy pulse traveling down the shaft.

005 - 00:27: Energy Pulses

A second energy pulse has entered the frame, with the first well down the shaft at this point. This second pulse is smaller and is not casting the powerful green glow on the technicians. We can, however, see that the green column has become more active with what might be interference patterns travelling along its length.

-----------

So does this help our discussion here at all?

[Ender]

Right, but why? I mean, I understand that assessing the power of a lightsaber necessarily requires understanding how much energy (work) was used (done) and then back-tracking to determine a possible power estimate, but...

what are we talking about again?

Apparently the difference between watts and joules.

A clonetrooper blaster is estimated at 8 MJ. Assuming the same speed as a TL here, it fires over the span of 1/15th of a second. Therefore, over the course of a second, it has a power of 120 MW.

Based off the TPM blastdoor scene, over a second a lightsabre will have a power of 100 MW.

However, since intensity is energy over area, we cut out all that sustained over time stuff, look at the energy units, and see that for the same area the lightsabre will automatically be more intense.

And in general, here we just refer to things here in units of joules, or in larger units tons.

So since we cut off that step and look only at the energy, not the power, discussing instantaneous vs sustained is irrelevent here. Hence the thangert, hence my confusion as to whetehr you understood what was being discussed since you actually went a step backwards from the conclusion.

[Connor MacLeod]

For the blasters it could be the gas and moisture from the atmosphere that was heated and is coming out. For the TLs, could be wear products, of parts of the matter stream that wasn't energized and accelerated out.

I asked for proof, not speculation. I take it you have none?

In attempting to rationalize it you are chaning it from being as stated. In other words, we are agreeing on this Connor.

No, I am attempting to rationalize what conflicting data we have in such a way that it makes sense. As far as I can tell, you are simply criticizing without offering any useful insight of your own aside from "its stupid so we should ignore it."

[Ender]

I asked for proof, not speculation. I take it you have none?

It has as much proof for it as Mad's TL theory that we agree is right: It rationalizes what we see with what we know: You don't discharge the coolant, you circulate it to radiate it away; in fact the E-11 has an outersleev dedicated to increasing the surface area for that. But we do see steam/smoke/something come from the barrel of blasters and occassionally we see discharges from TLs.

My explanation accounts for it; yours requires them to have less engineering knowledge and be more wasteful then we are now.

No, I am attempting to rationalize what conflicting data we have in such a way that it makes sense.

As am I.

As far as I can tell, you are simply criticizing without offering any useful insight of your own

Hypocritical much? You did the same WRT the ISDs/Destroyers.

aside from "its stupid so we should ignore it."

Explain to me how the explanation as presented in the literature is not wrong and that that explanation should not be ignored in favor of finding a new interpratation Connor.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Neither of us actually talked about something as silly as inserting an entire repulsor coil into the projectile (if such is even *possible*.) The subnuclear knots alone would be more than likely sufficient, if neccessary at all (in repulsors, tractor beams, or acceleration compensators after all, its the knots themselves that are supplying the required force).

You believe originally suggested that plasma bolts may require a tiny projectile to provide the means to keep them contained. I suggested maybe a repulsorlift coil (or subnuclear knot, whatever) could provide the level-trajectory.

I was uncomfortable with gravity-repulsing Tibanna because I thought the only solution for it would be negative matter, which is totally inconsistent with blasters.

[McC]

So...no thoughts on the superlaser images as possible launching points for further discussion on blaster/laser/turbolaser/superlaser functionality?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well if it is possible to have inversely accelerating matter that isn't negative matter, and doesn't always accelerate inversely to the vector of force, than somesort of intrinsically cohesive blob of energized Tibanna is the best candidate for many, perhaps even most blaster weapons.

Perhaps the energized Tibanna is plastic or solid in rigidness, and undergoes somesort of phase change or something into raw waste Tibanna while pouring stored energy into the target upon destabilization or impact.

[revprez]

Well if it is possible to have inversely accelerating matter that isn't negative matter, and doesn't always accelerate inversely to the vector of force...

I'm not sure what you mean. You could masses with like charges that still cannot overcome the gravitational force necessary to accelerate away from each other. Is this what you're talking about?

Rev Prez

[Mad]

So...no thoughts on the superlaser images as possible launching points for further discussion on blaster/laser/turbolaser/superlaser functionality?

It seems like those images could go either way. One could probably come up with an explanation that fit the images depending on what viewpoint he or she is trying to support.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Mad is suggesting that Tibanna is alike in every way to normal matter, except for one thing: the gravitational acceleration on any given world upon it is the inverse of all the other matter.

Ie., on Earth, Tibanna would accelerate upward at 9.8 m/s^2.

I, apparently erroneously, assumed that it would have to be negative matter to posess that property.

[revprez]

Mad is suggesting that Tibanna is alike in every way to normal matter, except for one thing: the gravitational acceleration on any given world upon it is the inverse of all the other matter.

Ie., on Earth, Tibanna would accelerate upward at 9.8 m/s^2.

You'll still need negative mass, in fact you'll need 150 billion times the mass of the Earth in this Tibanna to accelerate away from the Earth using gravitational force alone. Remember, Earth's gravitational force is still attractive.

I, apparently erroneously, assumed that it would have to be negative matter to posess that property.

It does, if you're only talking about gravity.

Rev Prez

[Darth Wong]

If Tibanna gas accelerates away from a gravity well, then why is it found deep in the Bespin gas giant's atmosphere? Shouldn't it have accelerated away into space?

[revprez]

What is Tibanna anyway? You say it has something to do with repulsorlift?

[McC]

I realize arguing this now is somewhat moot, since you already said you weren't necessarily adhering to the c-speed beam idea anymore, but I found it interesting anyway.

Oh, and when Saxton measured it the Death Star's SL moved at C. So unless they are distinctly different phenomana, there you go.

I was just reading over SWTC's superlaser section again and Dr. Saxton didn't measure the superlaser speed. Rather, he took the quoted figure in the ANH novel (75,000 km) and comapred that against the number of frames of travel time for the superlaser. Unless he did a subsequent visual analysis of the ANH footage which correlated these finding, then this figure is thrown into potential doubt as a result of this method (regardless of the novelization's canonical status).

I'm gonna see about doing a purely visual analysis, if I can

[Mad]

If Tibanna gas accelerates away from a gravity well, then why is it found deep in the Bespin gas giant's atmosphere? Shouldn't it have accelerated away into space?

Since it has to be processed and refined, it would seem likely that its unrefined form would contain enough normal matter that it still drops in a gravity well.

[McC]

Okay, here's my assessment of the superlaser's speed, as depicted when firing on Alderaan. First, have a look at this. It's an assessment of the varius lengths and angles involved.

The only article I could find via a quick search on Google suggested that motion control cameras like those used in Star Wars generally had lens focal lengths of 3.5-5mm, so I have provided for both scenarios. The angle measurements come from LightWave 3D 7.5, which calculates horizontal and vertical field of views given a lens focal length and output resolution (in this case, 720x330, the size of the actual visible frame from my Star Wars ANH VHS captures). I chose to go with the motion control lens because it's what was used for most (if not all) of the space shots in Star Wars, to the best of my knowledge. If someone can tell me different, I'll be happy to recalculate.

A few definitions below:

Code: Select all

Alderaan diameter: 119px
Overall view width: 720px
a = side opposite angle A; 1/2 overall view width
b = side opposite angle B; 'distance' to Alderaan
c = hypotenuse of triangle abc; irrelevant in this calculation
A = angle opposite side a; btw. ~73° and ~78°
B = angle opposite side b; irrelevant
C = 90° angle opposite side c; irrelevant

Now, I realize that Alderaan was certain not in the middle of the frame, as my image depicts that it is. However, I think its position can be ignored given the distance involved, since the camera would likely have to be set to focus at 'inifinite' distance to get Alderaan to focus the way it is.

So, since we know one side length and one angle of our 'frame-size' triangle, we can determine the distance to Alderaan via the following calculation:

Code: Select all

a = 360px
b = X px
A = 73.010° -or- 77.925°
tan(A) = a/b
tan(A) = 360px/Xpx --> Xpx = 360px/tan(A)
Xpx = 360px/tan(73.010) | 360px/tan(77.925)
Xpx = 360px/3.2729      | 360px/4.6745
Xpx = 109.99px          | 77.014px

So, Alderaan's distance from the frame is therefore either 77.014px or 109.99px. However, assessing the "Z-depth" of Alderaan in pixels doesn't help us measure the speed of the superlaser. In order to determine the km:px ratio, we need to know how big Alderaan is. We can do one of two things here: assume Alderaan is identical in size to Earth -or- use published RPG material (*gasp!* a sinner!) to garner Alderaan's size. Either way:

Code: Select all

Earth diameter: 12,756km
12,756km/119px = 107km/px
-or-
RPG diameter: 12,500km
12,500km/119px = 105km/px

So, using this scaled against the b side of the triangle pixel...

Code: Select all

105km/px * 77.014px = 8,090km (conservative)
107km/px * 109.99px = 11,800km (generous)

Now, this is all assuming I haven't made some incorrect assumption about the mathematics involved (that would be most embarassing ! ) and about the lens being used. However, this is not the end of the discussion. One thing remains: how fast did the superlaser get there?

Well, for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to assume that the superlaser travelled directly from the camera's viewpoint to Alderaan. Elsewise, the 3D trigonometry involved will probably make my head explode (assessing the diameter of the superlaser beam, figuring out its distance from the camera, etc, etc, etc). Suffice it to say, whatever figure I attain below will be a low-end estimate, even using the generous distance, due to the fact that the superlaser will have traveled a greater distance than I'm assuming.

In any case, the superlaser entered the frame on 03:15 of my firing video clip. It reaches Alderaan (impact with the planetary shield) at frame 03:22. As such, it is travelling for 7-8 frames, depending on which frames you decide to count as 'travelling' frames. Using this information:

Code: Select all

8,090km / 8frames * 30 frames/sec = 30,300 km/s
11,800 km / 7 frames * 30 frames/sec = 50,600 km/s

This is clearly and blatantly far below lightspeed. Unless my methodology is way off, then the 75,000 km figure stated in the ANH novelization is simply grossly inaccurate.

However, I don't know if my method here works. As such...

Possible sources of error:
Incorrect lens focal length
Incorrect assessment of trigonometry principles involved
Offset in position of superlaser beam from lens center

If I am incorrect in the first two, please let me know. I know the latter introduces some error, but I'm not really up to calculating it at 2:30am

[Ender]

I was just reading over SWTC's superlaser section again and Dr. Saxton didn't measure the superlaser speed. Rather, he took the quoted figure in the ANH novel (75,000 km) and comapred that against the number of frames of travel time for the superlaser. Unless he did a subsequent visual analysis of the ANH footage which correlated these finding, then this figure is thrown into potential doubt as a result of this method (regardless of the novelization's canonical status).

I'm gonna see about doing a purely visual analysis, if I can

Since frame occure at a given speed you have the delta T and you have the distance, so velocity should not be in doubt. So all I can see here is that for some reason you think the distance is BS with the only basis for being so is that it is canon from the novel instead of being stted by some gunner in the movie.

[McC]

Since frame occure at a given speed you have the delta T and you have the distance, so velocity should not be in doubt. So all I can see here is that for some reason you think the distance is BS with the only basis for being so is that it is canon from the novel instead of being stted by some gunner in the movie.

Precisely. The speed indicated by the analysis of the figure stated in the novel does not seem to match what we see, and as such, it throws the figure into doubt. If my above analysis is correct, then this figure is, in fact, erroneous as I suspected.

[Ender]

Since frame occure at a given speed you have the delta T and you have the distance, so velocity should not be in doubt. So all I can see here is that for some reason you think the distance is BS with the only basis for being so is that it is canon from the novel instead of being stted by some gunner in the movie.

Precisely. The speed indicated by the analysis of the figure stated in the novel does not seem to match what we see, and as such, it throws the figure into doubt.

No, lets be clear, it doesn't mesh with your assertion that despite counter evidence, TLs and there derivitives do not move at C. Therefor, obviously the evidence is wrong and not your hypothesis.

Would you agree that is an accurate assessment?

[McC]

No. I'm saying there's enough counter-evidence from incidents higher up the 'canonical' chain (movies supercede novelizations, if I'm not mistaken) to cast any notion of turbolasers/superlasers/blasters travelling at c into serious doubt. My hypothesis is formulated as a result of this data, not vice versa.

I see the maneuvering you're trying to do If I may be so bold, there's far too much jockeying to advocate positions rather than really throwing down numbers and attempting to analyze whatever visual evidence we can assess.

*points up at his above analysis* Is it right or wrong?

[His Divine Shadow]

I've starting thinking about some blasters like Bolters, they fire explosive shells with their own motors, and the glow is the exhaust, maybe it's a faulty way of seeing it tho.

[Ender]

No. I'm saying there's enough counter-evidence from incidents higher up the 'canonical' chain (movies supercede novelizations, if I'm not mistaken) to cast any notion of turbolasers/superlasers/blasters travelling at c into serious doubt. My hypothesis is formulated as a result of this data, not vice versa.

It was from direct movie observation that thhe C speed theory came about, therefore it would be impossible for the evidence to contradict itself, so it would be you who are the one manuvering and Jockeying here.

I see the maneuvering you're trying to do If I may be so bold, there's far too much jockeying to advocate positions rather than really throwing down numbers and attempting to analyze whatever visual evidence we can assess.

That woudl be because we did this and went through everything you are holding up, went through all the theories you ae tossing up, and shredded them over a year ago.

We already did all this work, hence why no one is bothering to do it again.

*points up at his above analysis* Is it right or wrong?

It is wrong. You made the exact same mistake as Bobby did when he came up with 250 meters range for the falcon. You made assumptions about the lenses that don't hold up. Go to the hate mail page and read MoO's rebuttal to RSA's website.

[Darth Wong]

Okay, here's my assessment of the superlaser's speed, as depicted when firing on Alderaan. First, have a look at this. It's an assessment of the varius lengths and angles involved.

The only article I could find via a quick search on Google suggested that motion control cameras like those used in Star Wars generally had lens focal lengths of 3.5-5mm, so I have provided for both scenarios.

The focal length of the actual camera used for the shooting of the film is not admissible canon evidence, any more than the fact that a Star Destroyer is actually a 6 foot long model rather than 1 mile long starship. Your entire analysis is bullshit. Try again.

[McC]

It was from direct movie observation that thhe C speed theory came about, therefore it would be impossible for the evidence to contradict itself, so it would be you who are the one manuvering and Jockeying here.

Which observations were those? So far, you've referred me to Dr. Saxton's analysis, which is based on a distance figure given in the novelization (i.e. not direct movie observation) compared with the frames over which the event happens.

That woudl be because we did this and went through everything you are holding up, went through all the theories you ae tossing up, and shredded them over a year ago.

We already did all this work, hence why no one is bothering to do it again.

I'll go hunt for it in the archives, but this is an extremely lazy attitude..."We already did it once, so why should we have to do it again?" Far be it for me to suggest that conclusions ought to be re-evaluated from the ground up from time to time

It is wrong. You made the exact same mistake as Bobby did when he came up with 250 meters range for the falcon. You made assumptions about the lenses that don't hold up. Go to the hate mail page and read MoO's rebuttal to RSA's website.

Check your facts. The RSA range mistake came about through assuming that "35mm" meant the focal length of the lens rather than the size of the film. I went out and got the focal length of the motion control cameras used (as best as I could find, anyway -- it's startling how little hard specification data there is available, at least from the search parameters I input) coupled with a professional CG package's assessment of the FOV involved. That's a far cry from the math used by the RSA fellow, which struck me as wrong when I first glanced at it.

I used a different method (so far as I can tell) and the correct focal length (as far as I know) and put up every step of my calculations and a visual representation of my source data. Please point out which aspect of this source data or calculation is inaccurate or incorrect in its assessment. Is the trigonometry incorrect? Is the focal length wrong? If not, I'm not entirely sure my findings can be cast into that much doubt...